https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760247 Preventive detention under COFEPOSA was examined at the pre-execution stage, and the Court held that delay or non-service at an alleged Nepal address did not justify quashing where the record indicated repeated efforts by the authorities and deliberate evasion by the proposed detenu. The Court treated the detention framework as permitting action against an absconding person and rejected relief where the petitioner's material lacked candour. It also held that a representation under Article 22(5) cannot be insisted upon before execution of the detention order and communication of grounds, so a pre-execution request for consideration of the representation was premature. The writ petition therefore failed, leaving the order undisturbed at this stage. en-us Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760247 Preventive detention under COFEPOSA was examined at the pre-execution stage, and the Court held that delay or non-service at an alleged Nepal address did not justify quashing where the record indicated repeated efforts by the authorities and deliberate evasion by the proposed detenu. The Court treated the detention framework as permitting action against an absconding person and rejected relief where the petitioner's material lacked candour. It also held that a representation under Article 22(5) cannot be insisted upon before execution of the detention order and communication of grounds, so a pre-execution request for consideration of the representation was premature. The writ petition therefore failed, leaving the order undisturbed at this stage. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760247